Wednesday, April 30, 2014

The seditious enablers of Jihad in Kashmir show their middle fingers to India.

Their hands are stained with the blood

of 500,000 Kashmiri Pandit victims of

Islamic Jihad genocide.

Omar Abdullah's recent taunt that Narendra Modi "lacks the courage" to visit Kashmir - is a blatant violation of the Election commission's model code of conduct. In fact, it is an incitement to murder - that too, of an elected public representative.

Farooq Abdullah's statement that "all those who vote for Modi should drown in the ocean" is an open call

for genocide of hundreds of millions of Indian citizens, Hindus in particular - who have either voted for or will vote for NaMo.

Yet, the paid Indian #PRESSTITUTES

lionize them as paragons of virtue and IDOLIZE them as deities of some mythical creature called " SECULARISM".

How is it that no authority in India takes cognizance of the murderous and genocidal hate speech of the Abdullahs ?

The ethnic (religious) cleansing of 500,000 Kashmiri Pandits in 1989-90 took place under the benign watch of the Abdullahs.

Yet, they have the audacity to demonize Narendra Modi as a "butcher" for spontaneous rioting by the public in response to the roasting alive of 79 Hindu pilgrims (and accompanied by ritual gang rape of many young women on the train -

not denied by the district administration) -

79 men, women, children and senior citizens roasted alive by a 2000

strong Jihadi terror mob that assembled "peacefully" and "spontaneously" in the early hours of a February morning in 2002, no doubt to answer the Muezzin's call to prayer.

Narendra Modi did everything in the administration's capacity to quell

the popular uprising - which resulted in over 250 Hindus killed in police firing.

What did the bloodthirsty

#PRESSTITUTES, "liberals" and "progressives" want?

That Narendra Modi should have embarked upon a proper genocide culminating in a minimum of 500,000 Hindu casualties - in emulation of the Abdullahs - to earn a certificate of "SECULARISM" awarded by them?

The coconut oil Christists are testing the limits of the nation's tolerance.

Ravindranath Tagore's song may have been a tribute to the English King George, but is nevertheless India's national anthem and as such, deserving of honour.

This parody of India's national anthem -

converted into a eulogy of their Pope constitutes a grave insult to Indian sovereignty and freedom. This is a deliberate defilement and dishonour of a national symbol.

What message does it convey to the Vatican and the Italian sailors who wantonly murdered Indian fishermen?

Will the authorities concerned take any form of punitive action? If the corrupt, compromised and anti-national Congress/UPA dispensation continues in office for even a month longer - the authors of this VULGAR song may be suitably rewarded by giving them prime positions in the NAC, the planning commission etc.

Has the UPA Government covertly given foreign missionaries a free hand to proselytise and convert 'heathens' in India? Persons seeking passport services in November 2012 were startled to discover that, without any discussion in Parliament or in public, the UPA Government has quietly relaxed restrictions on the entry and stay of foreign missionaries coming to the country. These restrictions were enforced on the recommendations of the Niyogi Commission, appointed to investigate the activities of missionaries in Madhya Pradesh, which submitted its report to the Union Government in 1956.

This backdoor act has set alarm bells ringing in many quarters. The news is true. The missionary visa is issued to those going to India "for a religious purpose". It takes up to three months to process, and the duration of stay is decided by the Government of India, which means it is open to discretion!

A visit to the passport office website and visa service clearly states, at Item 17: Missionary Visa: Visa to foreign missionaries, other than those holding 'No objection to return to India Endorsements', are granted only after clearance by concerned Ministry/ Department in India.

This is further clarified in Item 24: Registration: Foreigners entering India on Student visa, Employment visa, Research visa, Missionary visa valid for more than 180 days are required to get themselves registered with the concerned Foreigners Registration Office within 14 days of their arrival in India. Foreigners holding any other type of visa valid for more than 180 days do not require registration if the period of their stay in India on each visit is less than 180 days. However, they must register themselves within 180 days of arrival if the period of their continuous stay exceeds 180 days. For more details, see the website of MHA or Bureau of Immigration (www.immigrationindia.nic.in).

It is also learnt that the Government has decided to end the requirement for Protected Area Permit (PAP) needed by foreigners visiting Manipur, Mizoram and Nagaland, three States where the Church is well entrenched since the colonial era, and where the missionaries want to expand the separatist agenda.

It is pertinent that the website of the Ministry of Home Affairs does not mention the 'Missionary Visa' at all. Nor does the Foreigners Regional Registration Office (FRRO) where foreigners must register themselves if staying beyond 180 days, mention the Missionary visa. This is revealed only in the passport section, and is thus not known to the public at large, but word would have been spread through the international network of the church. The consular services of the Indian missions abroad would have received instructions regarding the processing of Missionary visa.

The creation of a special category of visa for missionaries may legitimately be considered as official patronage for Christian conversions in India. This violates the constitutional provision that the state would have no religion, and would treat all citizens as equal without discrimination on grounds of caste, religion, gender, or any other reason. The missionary visa in effect makes India a country where the state – or at least the regime of the day – has declared Christianity as a state-promoted and favoured religion, which has to be privileged even in violation of the Constitution and the nation's foundational ethos.

Hitherto, foreign missionaries have entered India by the back door, on tourist visas, and have been deported if caught preaching or proselytizing, as this is contrary to the stated objectives of their visa. Foreigners who joined the missionary-directed protests at Kudankulam nuclear plant were also rounded up and swiftly deported on grounds of violating their visa protocol.

Now, however, the Indian Government is offering a carte blanche for foreign missionaries to undertake conversion activities with impunity. All that the various church denominations have to do is ensure a regular stream of padris to avail of the Missionary visas on continuous basis, and thus the respective churches can have an unending supply of foreign missionaries to enthrall their target audiences. This is bound to ensure higher funding of Indian missions by foreign agencies engaged in proselytisation.

It is truly astonishing that despite so many brutal experiences with missionaries, most notably in the north eastern states and Orissa, where two respected sadhus, Swami Shanti Kali and Swami Laxmanananda, were gunned down with AK-47 rifles for resisting conversions, not to mention the painful legacy of the Goa Inquisition, the UPA sees fit to encourage missionaries to descend upon India and convert vulnerable groups. Politically, the entry of foreign missionaries also has the potential to destabilize the districts and state where missionaries operate, as has been seen in several places.

The missionary visa is nothing but a blatant attack on India's foundational ethos, civilisational integrity, and Hindu community which is the target of missionary machinations. It assaults the fundamental right of the Hindu community not to be trespassed upon by evangelists and to practice their native faith in peace and dignity.

In sharp contrast to its solicitude towards Christian missionaries, the UPA's attitude towards the Hindu community is best gauged from the attempt to impose the draconian Prevention of Communal and Targeted Violence (Access to Justice and Reparations) Bill, 2011.

One wonders if the haste to encourage missionaries to descend upon India has anything to do with the well known rejection of Christianity in large parts of the Western world.

Chinese military experts said Monday that India's anti-ballistic missile (ABM) technology remained only a strategic deterrence, following the Sunday launch of a high-altitude missile capable of intercepting targets outside the atmosphere.

India "created history by test-launching state-of-the-art Gen-next interceptor missile from a defense base off the Odisha coast," the New Indian Express reported Monday.

"The trial was conducted successfully and all the mission objectives were met," Ravi Kumar Gupta, spokesperson for India's Defense Research and Development Organization, told the Press Trust of India news agency.

Officials said the missiles are ultimately aimed at engaging targets in the exo-atmospheric region, indicating an altitude of more than 120 kilometers.

The interceptor missile was test-fired at 9.08 am from the launch complex-IV on Wheeler Island, just over one minute after the target missile was fired from a ship located nearly 70 kilometers off the Paradip coast, the report said. Wheeler Island is in the Bay of Bengal, around 10 kilometers from the northeast coast, and is home to India's missile testing facility.

India's latest anti-missile test is more aimed at "strategic deterrence," as this technology will make their enemies feel the strike power of their missiles is diminished, Wang Ya'nan, a senior editor at Aerospace Knowledge magazine, told the Global Times.

India is developing a two-tier missile defense system, which will destroy an incoming missile outside the atmosphere, and if that fails, go on to intercept it within the earth's atmosphere.

The missile is capable of destroying an incoming missile with a strike range of around 2,000 kilometers outside the earth's atmosphere.

"The missiles will get intercepted at range of more than 100 kilometers away, so that damage to our cities can be prevented," said Avinash Chander, the director-general of India's Defense Research and Development Organization (DRDO).

Only a few countries have such a capability, the newspaper said.

While some Chinese military experts agreed that India has made progress in missile interception technology, others cast doubt over the significance of the latest launch.

"It's hard to conclude whether India's anti-missile technology has reached a certain level, as they also launched the target missile, so the launch time and ballistic data are all readily available," a Chinese missile expert, who declined to be identified, told the Global Times.

He said based on Russia's S300 system, China has developed relatively mature anti-ballistic missile capabilities that are ready for combat, but India is still experimenting with it.

China bid to sell its Red Flag-9 anti-missile system to Turkey last year in a potential $3.44 billion deal, although NATO then exerted pressure on Ankara to abandon the deal, which still hangs in the balance.

Song Zhongping, a former lecturer on missile technology and now military affairs commentator in Beijing, said India's new interceptor missile "could only be similar to the level of Chinese missiles in the 1990s."

Song said that the target missile was not advanced and lacks effective evasive techniques which had made it easier for the interceptor to strike the target.

In real combat, however, it is hard for even the most advanced interceptors produced by the US, such as the Patriot missile, to hit Chinese missile targets, the anonymous missile expert said.

India has tested seven interceptor missiles in recent years, and claimed success for six of them.

The expert admitted China's anti-missile technology is at least 15-20 years away from the US, in terms of the response time, the target accuracy and comprehensive information technology.

Currently, the US, Russia and Israel are world leaders in anti-ballistic missile technology.

India and its neighbors Pakistan and China are all equipped with nuclear weapons. India test-fired a nuclear-capable medium-range Prithvi-II ballistic missile on March 28.

Japan today has a troubled security environment with China having lately indulged in conflict-escalation and political coercion in claiming sovereignty over the Japanese Senkaku Islands.

In this context, Japan gained a significant strategic pledge from the United States during President Obama's visit to Tokyo last week that security of the Senkaku Islands too is covered under Article 5 of the Japan-US Mutual Security Treaty.

It needs to be recalled that when tensions arose between China and Japan two years back, the United States was diffident and hesitant in conceding that the United States under its Treaty commitments was treaty-bound to assist Japan against any aggression by China against the Senkaku Islands. United States' ambiguity then was not only causing security concerns but also affecting the credibility of US security commitments not only in Japan but also in the Philippines similarly affected by China's conflict escalation against it over its South China Sea islands.

The ongoing tour of President Obama to its three military allies in East Asia i.e. Japan, South Korea and the Philippines, and also Malaysia was intended to 'rebalance' the US Strategic Pivot to Asia Pacific' and further provide security reassurances to these nations against the backdrop of China's unceasing military aggressive provocations in the East China Sea and the South China Sea.

Japan has been a reliable and long-standing ally of the United States and can be said to be the lynch-pin of the United States security architecture in the Asia Pacific. As explained in my last Paper this trip was to be a big strategic challenge for President Obama as the United States could ill-afford to ignore the security concerns of its major military ally in the region and a contending Asian power against Chinese hegemonistic impulses and that the United States could not subordinate this strategic reality to United States illogical 'China-Hedging Strategy'

In the same context it was brought out earlier too that United States' credibility was at stake in Asian capitals when it exhibited diffidence in standing up to China's rising military adventurism in the Asia Pacific when the United States as the global superpower with substantial stakes in the Asia Pacific was found wanting in firmness.

Significant it therefore becomes, and a big strategic gain for Japan, when after hard negotiations, President Obama asserted: "Our commitment to Japan's security is absolute and Article Five (of the Security Treaty) covers all territories under Japan's administration including the Senkaku Islands".

While the above assertion is unambiguous in terms of coming to the assistance of Japan against any Chinese aggression on the Senkaku Islands, the United States however refused to be drawn-in on the question of sovereignty of the Senkaku Islands when it was added that "We don't take a position on final sovereignty on the Senkaku Islands but historically they've been administered by Japan and should not be subject to change unilaterally". In this assertion also despite skirting judgement on sovereignty of Senkaku Islands it is implicit that the United States is messaging China that any 'unilateral" action by China meaning 'use of force' would be ill-advised and in the spirit of the assertion above would involve the United States in intervention in Japanese favour.

Continuing in the same vein, it needs to be brought out that preceding President Obama's visit to Tokyo last week, US Defense Secretary Hagel also paid a visit to Tokyo in the first week of April 2014 for security talks before proceeding to China for a similar visit. In a very strong message directed at China (but with a tail end footnote mentioning Russia so as to provide a sense of balance for Chinese sensitivities), Secretary Hagel minced no words when he asserted "Coercion and intimidation is a deadly thing. You cannot go around the world and redefine boundaries and violate territorial integrity and sovereignty of nations by force, coercion or intimidation, whether it's small islands in the Pacific or large nations in Europe".

China expectedly came out with strong responses to President Obama's assertions on the Senkaku Islands both through its Foreign Ministry spokespersons and its various media organs. The repetitive themes in Chinese responses were that China's sovereignty on the Senkaku Islands was indisputable and warning the Japan-US combines not to impinge on Chinese sovereignty and that both these nations would fail to "cage the rapidly developing Asian Giant". Another thread running in Chinese response was that while the United States may make any noises in Tokyo and Manila, the reality is that the United States " had also sought to avoid irritating China" due to economic compulsions.

China also has now sought to make bold its new assertions that China can never be 'contained'. When US Defense Secretary Hagel was conducted on board China's first Aircraft Carrier the Chinese General accompanying him asserted that "With the latest developments, China can never be contained."

Cutting through the above Chinese ripostes to President Obama's strategic assertions and the warning implicit in US Defense Secretary's strong statements, the analysis begs answers to two questions. "Is the United States President indulging in mere rhetoric in deference to Japan's strategic concerns when he asserted that the United States is committed to Japan's security including the Senkaku Islands or is it a significant course correction by the United States in its China policy formulations"? Secondly, "Would the United States also issue similar bold declarations on the South China Sea conflicts in favour of its military ally ,the Philippines and countries like Vietnam similarly victims of Chinese aggression and brinkmanship."?

The United States has been under dual pressures from its traditional allies and also domestic political pressures to "Draw Red Lines" in the Asia Pacific for China which it must not cross or else risk United States intervention, in the interests of regional security and stability. If that be so the President Obama may have signalled China that United States would not hesitate to deter China from any military adventurism against Japan.

The South China Sea conflict escalation by China at the expense of the Philippines and other AEAN disputants should normally call for similar declaration of 'Red Lines' for China not to cross. But in this case the United States may not be that much categorical except in the case of the Philippines with which it has a bilateral security assistance treaty. The South China Sea conflicts already stand "internationalised" and the United States may opt for international processes to take the lead. However, here too the United States, the West and other Asian powers have reiterated that the principles of freedom of navigation and access to global commons cannot be subjected to country laws. Would China be deterred by such declarations? Rather unlikely when China is in a military adventurist mode stands stiffened by its burgeoning military capabilities.

Concluding, one would like to observe that Japan has gained a significant strategic pledge from the United States for military assistance to withstand aggression in term of China's confrontation with Japan on the Senkaku Island. Significant in terms of United States China-policy is the new development that President Obama has finally broken, hopefully, the United States self-imposed shell of "China Hedging Strategy" and drawn 'Red Lines' for China over any possible aggression against the Japanese Senkaku Islands.

Asia Pacific security and stability would be greatly enhanced to the United States advantage if the United States could issue similar deterrent declarations on the South China Sea. Asian capitals logically and expectantly would await such a development.

It would very unwise at this moment in time for him to prove any point by responding to the taunts of the seditious Abdullah's.

These are the same Abdullah's, who in collaboration with Chacha Jawahirullah

murdered the Jan Sangh leader, Shyama Prasad Mukherjee in a Kashmir jail - because he had dared to violate the anti-national requirement imposed by them, namely for Indian citizens to have a permit to visit Jammu & Kashmir.

Shyama Prasad Mukherjee is yet to be avenged. The Hindu nation cannot afford to lose someone who personifies our aspiration for existence. The separatists can be dealt with after a nationalist Union government is formed.

“Modi sahib, you do not have the courage to come to Kashmir to seek votes. You have set out to become the prime minister of the country but you will not come to Kashmir to seek votes,” said Omar in Srinagar, adding, “You will go to Jammu and Ladakh but not the Valley because the ideas you have for this place, the way you have tried to defame people, I don’t think you will have any place in their hearts.”

"Many months ago, I visited Narendra Modi and told him that he must be a PM candidate. Modi was hesitant and said that there were many qualified people. I told him that he should create a 'Modi wave'." – Swami Dayananda Saraswati

Swami Dayananda Saraswati is a world-renowned teacher of Vedanta. Under his guidance, numerous centers for Vedic teaching have been founded around the world. The two main centers in India are the Arsha Vidya Ashram in Rishikesh and the Arsha Vidya Gurukulam in Coimbatore. In the U.S., the main center is the Arsha Vidya Gurukulam at Saylorsburg, Pennsylvania. At present, there are at least sixty centers in India and abroad that carry on the same tradition of Vedantic teaching. As a humanitarian and visionary, Swami Dayananda Saraswati founded the All India Movement for Seva, which has improved the lives of millions of indigent citizens. He founded the Acharya Sabha, a Hindu apex body of ancient mathas of India.

After having been diagnosed with a severe pulmonary disorder, Sri Swami Dayananda Saraswati had been hospitalized for more than two months in intensive care in Coimbatore. Swami returned to Arsha Vidya Gurukulam. He is slowly regaining my voice. He practices physical therapy daily to make his walking steadier and regain strength. His devotees all over the world have been praying for his speedy recovery.

In a recent conversation, Swamiji spoke about the ongoing elections and his conversation with Narendra Modi. "Many months ago, I visited Narendra Modi and told him that he must be a PM candidate. Modi was hesitant and said that there were many qualified people. I told him that he should create a 'Modi wave'."

Indeed the only excitement today is the Modi wave that is sweeping the country. So much so that even many from the US are visiting India to do their part.

Swamiji recalled campaign work he did in his twenties (1950s). "I was a journalist. Besides reporting, I used to get news from London and consolidate. The candidate for the T. Nagar, Chennai, constituency was impressed with my capacity to write. She offered me an office in a huge building. I served as her agent."

"I ran her campaign well. She lost to Congress as the Congress was very powerful."

Swamiji reminded us that even then, working for elections was not an ordinary game. "There are no rules. Middlemen offer to sell votes in exchange for favors."

"I left the job at the news agency because there was not much income there. Indian Express offered me a job but they asked me to wait for one year!"

It is truly inspiring that the most revered and foremost teacher of Vedanta of today was a journalist and involved in national elections. Today's citizens aspire for an honest and capable leader.

"Another term of Congress will ruin the country. The country needs Modi. I wish everybody all the best", concluded Swamiji.

​

"Non-interference of state in religious affairs is sound, as it recognises an important fact of human existence. Though universal values, which form the basis for equality before law, are connected to religion, there is another dimension of the religious life of a human being, so intimate, so sacred, that interference of any kind, by the state or other faiths, is experienced as violence. This consists in one's understanding of and relationship to the Lord. It is here that protection is required." – Swami Dayananda Saraswati

The aspiration of those who amended the Constitution to call India a secular nation is a noble one. Secularism, as originally conceived, embodies basic principles that implement and nurture universal values. Thereby, it fosters a state that is harmonious and, in harmony with the Lord. However, one may know or is taught that the Lord and ethical behaviour are inextricable. The essence of such behaviour is captured in a single guideline that is found in all religions—the ethic of reciprocity. Popularly known as the golden rule, it mandates, "Do to others as you would want them to do to you." This maxim that guided humans throughout history is traceable to ancient religious traditions all over the world. It is so pervasive because it is based on a special human endowment, empathy. Empathy is the capacity to sense the pain of another being and act appropriately. And the extent to which this empathy is honed is a mark of one's evolution as a human being seeking harmony with the Lord.

The principle of reciprocity based on empathy is the key component of a secular state—all citizens are equal, including before the law. Nothing helps to bring about the stability, growth and unity of a nation more than the implementation of this single idea. It instills in each and every individual a basic sense of security and confidence that there is order, justice in this world. You can go ahead; the laws will protect you and guide you. Equality also extends to religion. Each individual in a secular state is granted freedom to practise his or her religion. Though the Constitution now mandates so, it was originally part of the fabric of this country. The proximity of religious structures of different traditions, such as the Ellora caves, the long history of vigorous, public debate of different views, the Ashoka edicts, and the religiously persecuted communities who found refuge in India all testify to this.

This two-fold promise of secularism—equal citizenship and religious freedom for all—depends on the fulfilment of a condition that is the most defining feature of secularism. The separation of the sphere of influence and operation of the state and religion, which means there is neither interference of the state in religious matters, nor the influence of religion in the affairs of state. The prohibition of religious interference in matters of state is a corollary of equality before the law and equal citizenship. If separation of faith from state is not achieved, it will be impossible to avoid state interference in religion, inevitably violating the religious freedom of individuals and groups. And there will also inevitably be discrimination by the state against the individual's rights and privileges as a citizen. The result can only be a discordant, fragmented nation, or nations. If there is to be real equality, one group cannot be privileged over another by the state.

The Constitution ensures this required separation by the prohibition of religious instruction in state schools, and of taxes to support any particular religion. But it also mandates to ensure religious freedom breaks down in the constitutional sanction for state interference in religious affairs. The trouble is the unequal application of this sanction. This sanction is used for state administration of temples and maths, state appropriation of temple land and donations, even legislation of who should be admitted into the temples. On the other hand, in dealing with minority religions, there are political constraints, which restrict the interference. But in respect of the majority, there is no political constraint. As a result, the state has taken over places of worship and collection of revenue from offerings of the majority religion, but not others. Moreover, such revenue can be redistributed for other purposes, including maintenance of institutions of other religions, even those which are opposed to the majority religion. It has also led to the discriminatory modification of personal religious laws. The religious laws of some minority religions supersede parliamentary laws, while for the majority religion, parliamentary law has been enacted to supersede religious laws. This unequal treatment of religions by the state has created legitimate grounds for discord. And different civil or criminal laws for different groups, religious or otherwise, is the antithesis of secularism. If secularism is the aim, it is, therefore, necessary to find an alternative to the current relationship between state and religion. And whether it is called secularism or something else, such change is necessary if there is to be unity, and at the same time, religious freedom in this country.

Non-interference of state in religious affairs is sound, as it recognises an important fact of human existence. Though universal values, which form the basis for equality before law, are connected to religion, there is another dimension of the religious life of a human being, so intimate, so sacred, that interference of any kind, by the state or other faiths, is experienced as violence. This consists in one's understanding of and relationship to the Lord. It is here that protection is required. It is the state's responsibility to ensure no individual or group, including the state, interferes in religious expression of another group, by conversion or otherwise. To do so is to violate sacred space, individual and collective, and sow the seeds for dissent and fragmentation. If national unity and harmony are to be secured, the jurisdiction of the state has to be limited to framing and enforcing criminal and civil laws. Conventions, religious or otherwise, are outside its scope, unless they transgress the criminal and civil laws. Because of this, framing the laws is a matter of great responsibility and complexity in a religiously and culturally diverse society. There are unique realities in any society. India is no exception. The issue, for a governing body, is being in touch with all those realities and responding appropriately. This is sane. What is sanity but being in touch with reality? If we are to function as a homeland for every Indian citizen, and as a contributor in a global era, we must be sane. And to be sane, we must be united and fair. We cannot afford to marginalise or privilege any group, religious or otherwise. If sanity is being in touch with reality, our religious traditions have something more to say about this. In all traditions, that reality is the Lord, and the ethical laws are intrinsic. Thus, the more ethical one is, the more one is in touch with the sacred reality, and, whether as an individual or a nation, the more sane one is—free of conflict, productive, in harmony with the universal order. This is our heritage. Together we can claim this heritage. It is our duty to do so—our duty to our ancestors, to our neighbours, local and global, our children and their children, and to our own integrity. – The New Indian Express, 22 April 2014

The Indian Constitution does not define the word Minority. In 1947 Muslims and Christians were considered minorities for the purposes of Art 29/30. Somewhere in the 1980/1990's Sikhs were included as a Minority, probably after the Khalistani terrorist movement. In 2014 UPA declared Jains a Minority. The RBI does not consider loans to Jains as loans to a minority (some of the country's biggest industrialist are Jains) whilst setting targets for bank lending to minorities. The U.S. Constitution does not define who is a minority.

The recent offer of the UPA coalition to reserve 4.5 % seats for minorities within the OBC quota of 27% in Government jobs has once again reminded the people the evil effects of vote bank politics.

Without realising the reality of the centuries old communal mistrust between the two major religious communities from which the country is still suffering, the political parties in the country are not ready to abandon their game of vote baiting minority politics which is detrimental to the communal harmony in the country.

Whether it is the 4.5% reservation for minorities or reservation for them in Lokpal or proposed Prevention of Communal and targeted Violence Bill 2001 – all are rooted to vote bank politics for alluring the Muslim voters in elections.

As per article 2 of the Indian Constitution, the term minority includes Muslim, Christian, Shikh, Baudh and Parsi but in today's political context it mainly signifies Muslims. The politics of minority vs. majority – thus read between Muslims and Hindus is in fact rooted to the issue of separate electorates for the Muslims raised by the British over a century ago in 1909. Losing their right to vote equally with rest of Indian population was therefore, the first political isolation of Muslims with the Hindus.

The leaders of Indian National Congress (INC) always opposed the campaign of Muslim League leaders for separate electorates and pleaded that reservation on communal line would undermine the objective of a united territorial nationhood. They however, failed to transform the separatist mindset of the Muslim League leaders. Jawaharlal Nehru in a note on minorities in Young India (15th May 1930) said: "In free India political reservation can only be on national lines".

Constituent Assembly Debate on Reservation for religious minorities

To understand the evil effects of the reservation for the religious minority, we may like to have a look into the Constituent Assembly Debate (CAD) on this issue. Just before a week when India was formally declared Independent, the Advisory Committee on Minorities Rights debated the issue of reservation on 8th August 1947 and moved a proposal advising the CA to safeguard the political interest of the minorities with reservation for them in legislatures on the basis of population.

The issue was placed in Constituent Assembly (CA) for debate on August 27-28, 1947. However, in view of the experience of the alarming devastation of partition after the horrific and violent communal mayhem leading to the death of a million followed by huge- Trans border migration from both the countries, the House realized that if the proposal of the Advisory Committee on Minorities Right is accepted, it would further the already widened gap of communal mistrust between Hindus and the Muslims.

Sardar Patel said, "If the process that was adopted which resulted in the separation of the country is to be repeated, then I say: those who want to have a place in Pakistan and not here. Here, we are building a nation and we are laying a foundation of One Nation, and those who choose to divide again and sow the seeds of disruption will have no place, no quarter here and I must say plainly enough" (CAD VOL. V).

Jawaharlal Nehru had slammed the idea of communal quota and said, "A safeguard of this kind would have some point where there was autocratic or foreign rule, it would enable the monarch to play one community off against the other."

Even Muslim member like Tajamul Hussain, , a barrister and member from Bihar maintained:

"The state in India being secular shall have no concern with any religion, creed or profession of faith, and shall observe an attitude of absolute neutrality in all matters relating to the religion of any class of its citizens or other persons in the Union" (Constituent Assembly Debate, Vol. 7, page 815).

The Advisory Committee on Minority Rights met again on May 11, 1949 when a Christian member H.C. Mukherjee moved a proposal: "That the system of reservation for minorities other than SC in legislatures be abolished (CAD, VOL. 8, Page 311). While the Sikhs and Christian members supported the motion, out of four Muslim members present in the meeting only one had opposed it.

Placing the recommendation of the Advisory Committee in CAD on May 25, 1949 Sardar Patel said that " time had come when the vast majority of the minority Communities have themselves realized after great reflection the evil effects in the past of such reservation on the minorities themselves and the reservation should be dropped" (CAD, VOL. 8, page 270).

He recalled the 8th August (1947) proposal of the Advisory Committee advising the House to adopt certain political safeguards for the minorities by way of reservation of seats on the basis of population (CAD Vol.8, page 269) and said that even during debate there was difference of opinion on the issue. But with a view to allay the apprehensions of the minorities at that time the Advisory Committee recommended reservation for them.

Referring to Advisory Committee meeting on 11th May 1949, Patel said that in the house of "about forty members of Advisory Committee there was only one solitary vote against the proposal" (Ibid. Page 271). "So we thought that although these proposals were accepted in August 1947, it was due to us and to the House that we should advise the House to re-consider the position and put before the House a proposal which is consistent with the proclaimed principles of this House for the establishment of a genuine democratic State based purely on nationalistic principles" (Ibid. page 271).

The two-day prolonged debate in CA on May 25-26, 1949 was an eventful chapter of the post-Independence Indian history when the founders of our constitution abolished the system of reservation for minorities in any form. So much so even majority of the Muslim representatives pleaded that "all these reservations must disappear and that it was in the interests of the minorities themselves that such reservations (as proposed on 8th August 1947) in the Legislatures must go" (CAD Vol. 8, page 270).

Naziruddin Ahmad, a member from West Bengal said, "If we accept reservation and go to the polls, the relation between Hindus and Muslims which now exists will deteriorate …... The Hindu-Muslim relation of the immediate past will be recalled and feelings will be embittered" (Ibid. Page 296).

A lady Muslim member Begum Aizaz Rasul from then United Province said, "To my mind reservation is a self-destructive weapon which separates the minorities from the majority for all time" (Ibid. Page 300).

Tajamul Hussain was extra vocal when he strongly pleaded against reservation: "The term minority is a British creation. The British created the minorities. The British have gone and the minorities have gone with them. Remove the term minority from your dictionary. There is no minority in India …. ." "I would like to tell you that in no civilized country where there is parliamentary system on democratic lines; there is any reservation of seats". "We want to merge in the nation". (CAD VOL. 8, Page 333).

He rebutted the plea of Sir Saadulla, ex premier of Assam that majority of Muslim members in Advisory Committee meeting were opposed to the motion, Tajamul said that of the four Muslim members namely Maulana Abul Kalam Azad, Maulana Hifizur Rahman, Begum Aiaz Rasul and Jafar Imam present in the debate; only Jafar Imam had opposed it. While Maulana Azad and Hifizur Rahman did not speak, Begum Aiaz Rasul supported the motion. He maintained that out of seven Muslim members in the Advisory Committee only Saadulla and Jafar Imam were opposed to the motion.

About the number of Muslim members against the reservation he said that out of 33 Muslims in Constituent Assembly 10 had migrated to Pakistan. Of the remaining 23, 13 were strongly opposed to reservation whereas 10 were also divided. While some of them were in favour of reservation of seats in Legislatures, others were favouring separate electorates for the Muslims.

On May 26, 1949, Jawaharlal Nehru while supporting the motion said, "It is a motion which means not only discarding something that was evil, but turning back upon it and determining with all our strength that we shall pursue a path which we consider fundamentally good for every part of the nation" (Ibid. 331). He added, "Now all of us here, I believe, are convinced that that this business of separatism, whether it took the shape of separate electorate or other shapes, has done a tremendous amount of evil to our country and to our people" (Ibid. Page 331).

The long speech of Muslim member Tajamul Hussain on 26th May 1949 (vide page 332 to 338 in CAD Vol.8) opposing reservation for Muslims should be an eye opener to our vote baiting political hawks who in their game of Muslim-appeasing politics overlook the danger of its communal fall out as envisaged by our national leaders during CAD and abolished such divisive issue. But instead of respecting the constitutional commitment, our political class has revived the divisive policy of the British only for self seeking political interest.

Those who are now resurrecting quota on religious basis would do well to see what these great elders had said at the time of making the constitution.

China and Africa: Things fall apart 24/4/14

Love has no ending. I'll love you, dear, I'll love you till China and Africa meet. And the river jumps over the mountain." In 1937, when the English poet W.H. Auden wrote these lines in As I Walked Out One Evening, he probably thought the possibility of China and Africa ever meeting was so remote that it presented to him a good metric to describe undying love. Auden, who died in 1973, didn't live to see China and Africa meet economically and politically.

Starting from the late 70s, China's pursuit of high-speed growth, driven by exports and investments, has taken it across continents to Africa, where it can find every natural resource it needs for its economic quest. While global growth remained stuck at around 3% last year, China continued to race at 7.7%. Even in 2012, the year China began talking about rebalancing—shifting from growth dominated by investment to consumption—investment rate as a percentage of gross domestic product (GDP) was close to 50%, a feat with few parallels in history.

But in a slow-growth world, is this model sustainable?

China's involvement in Africa has political and economic costs. Till now, China remained largely unaffected by international criticism of the support it lends to African leaders. As long as it grew at a rapid pace, the political cost of doing business with dictators and authoritarian rulers was amply justified with returns from exports and domestic growth. With slower growth, those costs may rise.

As its economic wellbeing comes under threat, the country will have little incentive to consistently justify its friendship with autocratic leaders.

The story so far has been natural resources in return for political support. Iron ore, crude oil, natural gas, minerals and timber—all essential raw materials are found in abundance in Africa and the Middle East. All China has had to do to ensure the uninterrupted flow of natural resources to the country is to back unsavoury regimes in some of the most difficult regions of the world: Iran and Saudi Arabia in the Middle East, and Nigeria, Sudan, South Sudan and Zimbabwe among others in Africa. For other requirements, too, it has had to support dictators and authoritarian rulers.

Till now, China's foreign policy in Africa has seamlessly merged with its economic policy in the continent. For the purists, it is ideological support for Third World leaders who have been unfairly targeted by western countries. For China, increased influence in the continent lends legitimacy to their own non-democratic form of government, hence proving that Western democratic ideals are not universal. For both regions, reciprocal political support in international institutions such as the UN comes handy when it comes to issues such as human rights abuses by African dictators or Tibet. China is also an important power behind the failed bid to bring Sudan's Omar al Bashirbefore the International Court of Justice.

The two pegs join well.

But all this will change when immediate economic concerns trump distant political motives.

For starters, China's export-led growth has increasingly run out of favour. The world has slowed and so have China's exports. Its current account surplus fell from a huge 10.6% of GDP in 2007 to 2.6% of GDP in 2012. It had a steel output capacity of one billion tonnes in 2012 but a utilization of only 72% and worse profitability of just 0.04%. Its real estate sector now resembles a bubble that everyone fears.

Against this background, China's drive for securing these resources appears out of sync with economic realities. The costs of business as usual garnering of resources in Africa will be increasingly high. There, resentment against China importing labourers for projects from home has risen in recent years. Similarly, there is criticism about China's resource colonialism in western and southern Africa. These issues were not problems as long as China was growing fast; now they may be reckoned as an American-style blowback, although China has not reached that stage.

This can be to India's advantage in the continent. So far, success on a Chinese scale has eluded Indian businesses in Africa.

The reasons for it are complex. But one reason is India's inability to counter China. By ensuring it does not engage in reckless exploitation of African resources, investing in infrastructure projects without taking away jobs from the region (a major grouse against China), India could strengthen its position.

The African-Chinese relationship has been working till now because the leadership in both places has colluded in human rights violation or exploiting the local population. For the African masses though, a sympathetic India which treats them as equals would be a better alternative than an abusive China.

The road to Slovyansk by by Yuriko Koike 24/4/14

The Ukraine crisis has demonstrated that one person alone can endanger world peace. But that one person might not be Russian President Vladimir Putin, who in reality only leads a large regional power that, owing to his authoritarian rule and muddled economics, is a long-term threat more to itself than to the world. No, the lone actor most responsible for threatening world peace might unwittingly be US President Barack Obama, with his scholarly inertia and apparent disregard for the fate of smaller, faraway countries.

Of course, Obama is not responsible for Russia's invasion and annexation of Crimea, or for Putin's massing of Russian troops on Ukraine's eastern border in an effort to intimidate the government in Kyiv. Nor is Obama alone in crafting a Western policy of appeasement by default. German Chancellor Angela Merkel also bears considerable responsibility: Her tough rhetoric masks a largely business-as-usual approach that reflects her country's dependence on Russian gas supplies.

But Obama is responsible for his administration's apparent indifference to the fate of the American-built order that has governed world affairs since the end of World War II. Unless he toughens his policies, the rules and norms that have guaranteed peace for so many for so long could lose their force.

The utter disconnect between America's diplomatic principles and practice has become so great that it is emboldening the country's adversaries. That is why, following Russia's illegal seizure and annexation of Crimea, Putin is now trying to mould Ukraine's eastern provinces into vassal regions, if not foment irredentism, in order to realize his dream of reconstituting the Russian empire.

But it is not only America's rivals who are taking note of Obama's passivity. The US' closest allies are also watching nervously, and the conclusions they appear to be drawing could harm its national security interests severely in the years and decades to come.

Consider the Middle East, where Saudi Arabia is already openly questioning the reliability of the Kingdom's historic US defence guarantee. And US secretary of state John Kerry's "guidance" for a settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which should have been unveiled this month, will now remain under wraps. Speculation abounded that Kerry's proposal would contain a specific US guarantee of Israel's borders. But can anyone imagine Israelis taking America at its word after watching the US dither while Russia redrew the map of Ukraine?

In the Budapest Memorandum of 1994, the US, together with the UK and Russia, guaranteed Ukraine's territorial integrity in exchange for its surrender of the large nuclear arsenal it inherited from the Soviet Union. Now that the US has disregarded its obligation to Ukraine—reportedly unwilling even to share intelligence with its government on Russian troop movements, much less supply the country with the means to defend itself—all bets are off concerning an American guarantee of Israel's security and territorial integrity.

For that matter, why should Iran discontinue its nuclear programme when it sees the ease with which Ukraine was dismembered? After all, the Iranians have borne far harsher sanctions than those imposed on Russia so far.

By acquiescing in Russia's seizure of Crimea, the US may also see core alliances begin to unravel. For example, the US has openly stated that it will defend Japan should China forcibly seize the disputed Senkaku Islands. But if America can evade its guarantee of Ukraine's territorial integrity, why should Japan's leaders believe that it will do otherwise in the case of a far-flung cluster of uninhabited islands that are scarcely more than rocks inhabited by sheep?

US secretary of defence Chuck Hagel heard an earful of official doubt about the credibility of America's defence commitment during his recent visit to Japan. Obama is certain to hear more of the same in Tokyo this week.

Of course, the US is no longer in a position to "pay any price…to secure the survival and the success of liberty", as John F. Kennedy put it in his inaugural address—not in Ukraine, and not anywhere else. The huge price of its wars in Afghanistan and Iraq has understandably made the US war-weary.

Moreover, no country has the right to expect Americans to fight and die on its territory for its freedom. But has the US become so withdrawn from the world that it is willing to pay only a symbolic price, such as that implied by Russia's tit-for-tat sanctions, to stop aggression that threatens the international order? Have America's recent foreign wars so scarred its leaders that they are unable to defend the world order that their predecessors created and for which many Americans have died?

The time is growing short for the US to demonstrate anew—to friend and foe alike—that its word remains its bond. Unless Russia honours the accord recently reached in Geneva to defuse the Ukraine crisis, the US must use—and soon—its full arsenal of non-military means to demonstrate to Putin the costs, and folly, of his 1930's-style revanchism.